Students discovered racial slurs and several drawings of male genitalia on the walls and doors of Williams Hall E early Saturday morning. The word “nigger” was written on two second-floor common room door signs and on the door sign of the nearby custodian’s office. A Security investigation is ongoing.

Ahh. This explains the differing reports about whether the slur was written on two doors or three. It was written on two student doors but on three doors in total. I can’t find the on-line floor plan for Williams Hall, but is the custodian’s office on the second floor as well? So, our perp walked up to the second floor and did his deed on all the doors that were there? Is it obvious to a non-resident that the custodian’s office door is not a student door? Much of this seems to make a hoax less likely. If you are a hoaxer, you want to be certain that people interpret your actions as an attack. Writing on the (white) custodian’s door mixes up your message.

More analysis and commentary below.
Still, that the graffiti was on the second floor means that our performance artist went out of his way to put his mark there as opposed to some place more easily accessible. This makes serious ill-intent, as opposed to just drunken stupidity, more likely.

The first racial slur posting was found at around 1:45 a.m. on Saturday, when a resident of the entry found “nigger” written on a white board on the landing between the first and second floors. No additional vandalism was reported until Williams E JA, Richard McDowell ’09 discovered the marked signs on the second floor around 9:15 a.m.

Can we nail down the time a little more closely? Surely there were students going up and down those stairs at 10, 11, even 12. Was the graffiti large enough that none of them could have missed it? We can assume (?) that all the graffiti went up at once. When did the residents of the two second floor rooms turn in for the night?

And, by the way, if I were a security officer I would want to closely question whoever “discovered” the graffiti.

“I found and removed the signs in the morning when I woke up,” said McDowell, who placed the posters in his room and called Security roughly an hour later.

Meanwhile, residents of the entry saw the penises drawn on some of the entry’s walls. According to McDowell, the drawn penises could not be erased and remained on the walls all weekend.

All of the vandalism was done in permanent marker, which has led some residents of the entry to believe that the incidents are related. One resident said, “Everywhere there was the word ‘nigger’ there was also a penis,” signaling the likelihood of a single perpetrator.

That makes sense. In fact, this is a single perpetrator almost trying to get caught. To do a bunch of nasty graffiti at a relatively early hour on the second floor of an entry in which you do not (?) live is to run a real risk of getting caught. Unless you had reasons for not worrying, like a look-out. Even then, how could you know that the residents of those rooms weren’t about to come out the door unless you had very good intelligence about their schedules.

The resident, an occupant of one of the tagged suites, was not convinced that the slurs were personally directed. He said that while there were two African-American students whose doors were drawn on, those doors also belonged to Caucasian students, in addition to the third door that belonged solely to a Caucasian custodian. “That obviously is no excuse,” the resident, who wished to remain anonymous, said. “It just means that this might not have been directed at any particular people.”

I think that I can safe from accusations of rampant PC-ery, but come on! If you write “nigger” and draw penises on the suite doors of male African American students, you are pretty obviously directing your comments at some very specific people. Are there any other suites with African American students in Willy E?

Also, if I were Record reporter Jared Quinton, I would want to know more about this resident. Am I safe in assuming that he is not African American? I assume that Quinton knows his race but revealing it would remove (most of) his source’s anonymity.

Following McDowell’s call on Saturday morning, Security, in conjunction with the Dean’s Office, has been investigating the incident. On Sunday, Security and the Dean’s Office met with 20 residents of the entry for questioning. Jean Thorndike, director of campus security, declined to comment on which students had been questioned, within or outside of the entry.

Note the time line. A student sees the graffiti at 1:45 AM and doesn’t tell anyone. I guess that this is vaguely plausible. You don’t want to wake up your JAs. You don’t think that this merits a call to security. You have plans and don’t want to be bothered. But then you also don’t take down the offensive posters? Hmmmm. I would have acted differently. What would you have done?

Quinton does not make clear who is the source for this 1:45 AM claim. Did he get that directly from the student? Did he hear it from a security officer on the case? Was this the same student who is his anonymous source?

The reason all this matters is that it provides clues as to the perp’s identity and motive. Many hoaxes are initially reported by the hoaxer. Only someone with extensive knowledge of entry schedules would have been comfortable writing graffiti at a time when many students, especially on a Friday night during Winter Study, are still up and about. And then, to claim (without much reasoning) that this might not have been directed at anyone, is, perhaps, an indication that you know that this was either a hoax (and hope the whole thing goes away) or a stupid prank (with no ill-intent on your part).

Thorndike confirmed the ongoing search, but offered no specifics or timetable for its completion. “Searches like this can go on for a long time, depending on what kind of information we get,” she said. Thorndike stressed the importance of the anonymous tipline, and said it may prove essential to the investigation. “Students never want to turn other students in,” she said. “But if it can be completely untraceable and anonymous, maybe we’ll get something.”

If you are the perp, you should be concerned. Lose the pen. Lose anything that you might have written on with that pen. Older Ephs will recall the Tufts students who painted JUMBOS in huge letters on the Chapin columns several years ago. They were caught when the College/police analyzed the paint, determined the manufacturer, and traced all recent purchases. Sure enough, those idiot Tufts students had bought the paint on their way to Williamstown with a credit card. The College will try just as hard to find you.

And, if you are the College, you can be sure that that permanent marker was used elsewhere.

On Saturday evening, Dean Merrill informed students of the incident in an all-campus email, stating that the College had begun investigating and that the Williamstown Police Department had been notified.

Merrill also expressed concern for the campus’ sense of community and trust. “Such behavior clearly violates our standards of conduct on campus,” she wrote. “It also fundamentally attacks our sense of community and the bonds of trust we aspire to build among all members of the college.”

College Council co-presidents Morgan Goodwin ’08 and Kim Dacres ’08 followed with an all-campus email on Sunday afternoon. They detailed a few specifics of the incident and reiterated a sense of concern. In addition, Goodwin and Dacres invited students to share their “stories” of similar incidents. “We want to engage the campus and ask, what can we do, both structurally and on a very informal level to foster respect and protect our community against harm,” they wrote.

Again, don’t take about “stories” unless you are going to share them with us.

That night, Williams E addressed the incident at entry snacks. According to McDowell, entry residents did not share a belief that anyone had been directly targeted by the racial slurs. “Everyone thought it was silly,” he said. “They didn’t see it as directly attacking anyone, but some were obviously more affected.”

Huh? I am really confused. And am I wrong to be curious about McDowell’s race? I also wish that Quinton had interviewed some African American JAs and first years from other entries. I bet that they don’t think it was “silly.”

Something weird is going on in Willy E . . .

And we still need a scandal name. Willy and penises? Help me out people!

Related posts:

26 Responses to “Slurs Update”

rory says:

Loooking Richard McDowell up on facebook makes it pretty clear that at least by appearance, he is not african-american.

Some thoughts:
1. the 1:45 vandalism was the word on a white board. that may have been a precursor to the larger effort (posters) on the second floor.
2. A friday night at 1:45 am leads me to think it was a drunk idiot (one who might not even remember doing it…not that that is much of an excuse). Further, if there were a party somewhere, the perp might have known the students were out (or away from campus on winter study) or even might have seen one of them with his/her love interest (which might explain the penis as well as the term).
3. It would be hard to isolate who did it if there were a party in williams or if a group of people entered–card swipes aren’t going to be definitive enough to catch someone, sadly.

Treating this event like a whodunit, an intrigue, is counterproductive.

It elevates the identity of the perpetrator, which may very well be a private matter between the perpetrator and the school, over other aspects of the issue such as how these apparently not infrequent events affect the Williams College community.

The Dean’s office did not solicit the assistance of Ephblog to help find the perpetrator. Rather, it seems they want the issue to be handled as a private matter.

The College Council Co-presidents are not engaged in finding the perpetrator(s), that is the Dean’s job. The instead point out this is not an isloted incident and

“This incident is hurtful and alarming, but it is also an opportunity. We can focus the community around issues of respect, student citizenship and residential life… We can think about how the college should deal with incidents like this and what sort of community we want Williams to be.”

And the door to the custodian’s office is in the stairwell itself on the second floor of Willy E. Everyone passes by it but it is out of one’s natural line of vision. The other two doors on the second floor of the stairwell lead to the entry common-room (which is located on the second floor in only some of the entries in Willy) and a hallway that leads to the rooms in question. Because E is on the corner of the building it is the only entry with hallways as such.

Having lived there in the past, the hallway is relatively private and even on a party night with many people about someone could have done this alone, without a lookout.

This strikes me as NOT premeditated, additionally, because unlike last years Mary Jane Hitler incident this was simply written on whiteboards and was accompanied by crude drawings of penises.

And for ephblog to offer excuses, suggest extenuating circumstances and offer advice on how to cover tracks seems beyond simply irresponsible in elevating the status of the perpetrator, it borders on aiding and abetting.

‘Prank’ = a practical joke or mischevious trick. This ain’t one!

Cut the titillation, Sherlock, or make ephblog available at the checkout counter! ‘

That entry of students and JAs are going through enough as it is. The last thing they need is to have their names bandied about on EphBlog.

Discussing the nature of the incident is one thing, ( I always like to hear what Rory has to say about these issues), but taking on the official “detective” work is presumptuous and (as Dick implied) tacky.

The frame of mind of the perpetrator is relevent to whether the act was malicious.

Prognosticating about the frame of mind is nothing less than gossip, no matter how clever one’s deductions are.

Focusing on the perpetrator and their frame of mind to understand the act is one thing, doing it to excuse the act is quite another.

Isn’t that the conversation we should be having? Under what condition scrawling nigger and drawing penises ought to be considered reasonable behavior for a Williams Student, and what an appropriate response by the Dean’s office should be.

I don’t know how the college should react if the perpetrator(s) is (are) found. I think that the deans probably shouldn’t come up with a rigid stock response before they know what actually happened.

What can EphBlog readers do to try to improve the situation? Is there anything we can do that would support the deans and the students who are affected, especially those living in Williams E?

I will lead off by noting that Williams is extremely fortunate to have the Junior Advisors to lead the first years and liaise with the administration. I would imagine that the Class of 2011 students living on the quad felt differently (meaning more protected and more able to process and address what was going on) than they would have if the JAs had not been living in their midst. That juniors, in what is a crucial academic year and when so many of their peers are off on overseas adventures, devote so much of their energies to younger students and take this volunteer job so seriously are extremely touching aspects of the Williams experience; their presence makes a substantial contribution to the strengths of the residential system. My attempt at trying to help is to thank them and to empathize with how much more difficult incidents such as the current one may make their work.

I am not offering excuses. I am trying to understand/explain how the world works. I also, as always, offer advice to any Eph, even those who I disagree with, on how they might best accomplish their goals. Getting rid of the pen is good advice, don’t you think?

Can anyone offer insight on that final paragraph from the Record article?

That night, Williams E addressed the incident at entry snacks. According to McDowell, entry residents did not share a belief that anyone had been directly targeted by the racial slurs. “Everyone thought it was silly,” he said. “They didn’t see it as directly attacking anyone, but some were obviously more affected.”

Is this bad reporting? Please explain to me how everyone in an entry could think that something like this was “silly.” I could imagine a few students thinking that, or not really caring, but “everyone,” including the JAs. I am honestly mystified.

Unless McDowell has a reason for spinning the story in this way, for wanting to put the controversy behind . . .

And the behavior of the 1:45 AM student is a mystery as well. Is it really plausible that there was one graffiti attack, noted at 1:45, and then more afterwards? If true, wouldn’t that suggest that it had to be an entry resident, or someone with a good excuse for making multiple trips to Willy E?

Is this bad reporting? Please explain to me how everyone in an entry could think that something like this was “silly.” I could imagine a few students thinking that, or not really caring, but “everyone,” including the JAs. I am honestly mystified.

Honestly, I think this is par for the course at Williams. We could go on ad nauseum about cultural sensitivity and blahblahblah, but the fact remains that much of the community remains out of touch with minority issues. Whether or not this is actually something we should try to fix is another matter entirely, as I don’t think it will ever really change. Nor do I necessarily believe that Williams is unique in this sense among peer schools.

At the end of the day you throw up your hands in dismay, but I can tell you from (4 years of) experience that things are very unlikely to change.

I live in Willy E and it most definately wasnt Richard, and all of your assumptions are actually very ignorant and potentially hurtful. I also don’t believe that it was anyone in the entry but I do believe that it was a drunk person. That is most definately not an excuse but the fact that people stumble through our entry all of the time, and with everyone able to get into the building, makes it hard to track down who actually did it. And no one is hanging out in hallways, no matter what the time of day, and I’m sure it only took a minute or two to complete the ignorant and childish drawings and writings so it literally could have been anyone.

On another note, the dean’s office and security are really dont a great job at investigating this matter. Myself included, they have interviewed everyone in the entry, checked where they were, what they saw, who they were with, and then went to those students and got their story. Granted, it will be hard trying to find out who did this, but they are really determined.

Based on Trinity’s blackface incident last year and the way reports of these bizarre incidents keep cropping up here and there across campuses, Williams is far from the only place amongst its peers that has racial incidents. That doesn’t excuse any of them.

What I think and hope it does is to sensitize non-minority students, parents, alumni, faculty, townspeople, and staff. Once I hear about something like what happened in Williams E, I start reexamining my assumptions about what a “safe” place Williams feels like for students and I also start reexamining my thoughts about race. I applaud Williams for bringing the incident into the open, as that is an important prelude to the discussions that can bring increased awareness, empathy, and understanding and help build genuine community.

I appreciate the comments from the student in Willy E. The more testimony we here from those with firsthand knowledge, the better. The College, as is its wont, will not be telling alumni anything about the matter. Comments:

1) I did not write, nor do I think, that Richard McDowell had anything to do with this. Obviously! He is a JA and, according to folks I have communicated with, a great one.

2) What “assumptions” do you find “ignorant and potentially hurtful?” In this context, I am trying to tell the story of what happened to our hundreds of interested readers, especially alumni and parents who have no other source of news. I understand that you may find it “hurtful” to read someone speculate about how might be involved, but there is some truth out there, and I am going to do my imperfect best to find it.

They don’t want to give “testimony” to EphBlog. Don’t bait Willy E to return and defend his/her comments. S/he was courageous in coming forth to defend the (many) assumptions and inferences in your post…about the JA, the reporter, the entry mates, how it happened….reread your comments above and perhaps it will be more clear.

Please, take a cue here and back off. Leave these kids alone. They have enough on their plates, and your (and anyone else’s) “curiousity” is not enough to justify adding to their troubles.

Thank you, David, for bringing these concerns to light. I think the more attention shown the school and its community by “outsiders,” (alums, parents, prospies, interested others), the more those within may be inclined to more critical self-examination. Thank you again for your work on this, as on all the other “contretemps” of the recent past. And I encourage you not to “back off” or “leave these kids alone” — that won’t help solve anything and is, more than likely, what the perp(s) would prefer.

While I very much respect your desire to see justice done, I don’t agree that EphBlog is the place to accomplish that.

The entry, and their JAs, have made it clear that they, along with the school, are doing their best to find the “perp”. They are under a lot of stress and scrutiny. They don’t need more from an outside source that doesn’t have the facts.

I, like you, respect David’s curiosity and devotion to Williams, I just don’t agree with the outcome of it in this regard.

The purpose of these posts, like many others, is not primarily to “see justice done,” although I am not anti-justice. The purposes are:

1) Reporting. Want to know what is happening at Williams? Then you need to read EphBlog and the links we provide.

2) Analysis. Want to understand the background, history and subtext of campus events? Read EphBlog. No student on campus even knows about the hoax from ten years ago (and none of the faculty members who recall it seem to have mentioned the incident). This background comes from EphBlog.

3) Advice. If you don’t want my advice, don’t follow it. If you think my advice is bad, then offer your fellow Ephs better advice. We are all part of the Williams Conversation. Don’t carp, instead contribute.

If you have specific criticisms of my reporting/analysis/advice, then make them. But be specific. Quote the offending passage and explain why you think it is wrong. I really can’t understand some of the criticisms above.

“Aparent”s” posting of the article was reporting. You should have stopped with that.

Your post above is rife with assumption. You have basically re-created the event, adding “details” and “motives” and “innuendo”, that, with a less sensitive and “loaded” issue, might be considered harmless.

In this case, which has been pointed out by many besides me, ( Neil, Will Slack, Dick, WillyE etc.) it has not been helpful…and puts unfair scrutiny on a lot of innocent people.

This note is not about the continuing slurs conversation on which I have made a couple comments, but to inquire about the paraphrase of the Gen Phil Sheridan quote … I give up, what do you mean? Or is this a private reference between you and David K?

I understand the Sheridan quote in it’s original context. And in spite of ‘scorched earth’ in the South and Indian atrocities in the West, the General did help Chicago and Yellowstone and I was separated out at the fort that bears his name.